Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 5, 2015 6:30pm-7:01pm PST

6:30 pm
17 and authorizing the director to enter into a designation agreement with said facility. >> thank you and i know we have a presentation from the department of public health staff. >> thank you good afternoon i have documents i'd like to pass out. i have copies of our powerpoint and also edgewood has some letters of support from their neighbors. >> and i have dr. young and dr. anderson here from edgewood. i don't know if you need more. okay. here you go. okay. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you so much for hearing us today. let me start out by why we're hear and what we're requesting. we're here
6:31 pm
to request the board of supervisor to designate a facility for children and youth in san francisco who are in psychiatric crisis. at 5151 designation for the crisis unit will allow youth in psychiatric crisis to be taken to a specialized youth oriented facility. you are probably wondering what this unit does. it provides care in a family setting and psychiatric care providing linkage and case management for follow up services and behavioral stabilization to avoid psyche emergency services. this is a 23-hour facility and most of
6:32 pm
our psychiatric hospitals for children and youth are out of county we have one facility in san francisco that's saint marys but that only takes children 12 and older we have no facilities for children in the city for children 12 and under so they have to go to contra costa county john muir that's the closest one. so you can imagine how difficult that is for families. including traumatized children families trying to keep their children safe and we have so far served approximately 200 individuals. >> why we're asking for the facility to become a 5151 designated facility is because and children are often sent to
6:33 pm
psyche emergency services or to hospital emergency rooms you can imagine how difficult this is for children and their families to be sitting there while already in a crisis situation and often not equipped to deal with crisis where that is a great facility it's really hard for children and families to be in an adult setting. we're hoping to relief the san francisco police department by being a facility that will accept children efficiently and safely and hoping to reduce unnecessary hospitalizations and we're hoping that by keeping children to san francisco they will be closer to their current mental health provide ers, schools and support systems. how will this improve the care for children. like i mentioned when children
6:34 pm
are in psychiatric crisis they need to go to psyche emergency or er's and most of our youth are hospitalized out of county. we have limited referral sources if we're trying to get providers to go out of county to see their clients it's difficult this way it's much more efficient and in our proposed system youth will be seen in a family friendly unit and it's in san francisco. the interventions are family focussed and of course there's easier access to immediate follow up. >> extensive community outreach has been done. we've had 2 community meetings with over one hundred people in attendance and provided
6:35 pm
interpreters and flyers will distributed 1 week to today's neighborhood and safety committee meeting. >> i'll talk a little bit about our community response. many of the neighbors did express support. edgewood has been a good neighbor for over one 100 years and the neighbors did appreciate the service that they provide to children and youth of san francisco county. some neighbors expressed concern about noise and safety. the siren policy that means when children are brought to the facility there won't be a siren. and the 28th avenue entrance has been remodeled to add security. so i have edgewood here to answer any
6:36 pm
questions you have regarding this resolution. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you just let me be very clear from the outset that i understand the importance and the need for this service and i had a conversation with a public health director today specifically about this item i do believe that at some point the city needs to designate a facility as an alternative because right now there's only one facility that actually provides that service. and so i don't question the need for it i don't question the fact that this should happen and should happen expedio u.s. ly but we need to be careful about what kind of entity we designate and i have some serious concerns about edgewood. when you talking
6:37 pm
about a unit or entity that provides this kind of service for children, this is a very important work, it's very sensitive work and the quality of the work is ultimately dependent on the workers, the people on the ground doing this work. and i just want to note that i am very troubled by the fact that over the last few months we have received a number of complaints and concerns from workers at edgewood and my office has actually reached out to edgewood to address some of those concerns and the response was actually pretty diss diss miss pretty diss missive and i think if you ask some some of the workers that are familiar with this facility and familiar with this entity they will tell you that this is not an agency that at least from the workers
6:38 pm
who are on the ground treats their workers well, this is not an agency that recognizes that in order to treat workers -- the reason why you need to treat workers well is because it has a direct impact on the quality of service provided to the families and if the working conditions of these individuals are not sound and strong that leaves a lot to be desired in terms of the quality of the service that is provided. so i will be voting against this item and i would urge my colleagues that we send a very clear message today while indeed it is the case that we need to provide this service we want to make sure this entity that's designated to provide a very important and sensitive
6:39 pm
service is one that's going to have the kind of work environment could conducive to providing good service to these families i'd urge my colleagues to join me me in rejecting this item. >> thank thank you supervisor campos i also have letters of support and also i have letters of protest from a number of people and i just wanted to ask maybe if the edgewood rep can address -- there's a number of national labor relations charges that will be heard on on february 17th in san francisco and i'm wondering if if you can address the workers conditions and the extremely high turnover rate of the staff there and what type of organization we're talking about and i know edgewood too because my twin brother lives a
6:40 pm
couple of blocks away and i'm appreciative of the letters of support that we've received too and. >> it is a separate issue from our conversations with our staff i think if you came to edgewood at this point you would see that the majority of our staff are in favor of this particular unit the issues are about how aggressively or quickly can we enhance compensation and healthcare benefits and those kinds of things and so if the pleasure of the committee -- i'd like to separate these two issues yes there's one issue the need for the crisis stabilization unit to help the children's families that are dealing with these psychological crisises and at the same time there's edgewood and the aggressive measures we've been taking and trying to enhance our benefits
6:41 pm
to our staff we have not been able to keep up at the pace we'd like to as you know the cost of living in san francisco is escalating and it's been difficult to retain staff and to maintain the pace of increase in pay and benefits that we'd like to but with that said we've made aggressives measures to be able to do that and edgewood is a nonprofit organization. 85 percent of our funding comes from public agencies and we've not received an increase in our rates in 10 years and also that said earlier this year there was a union vote at edgewood and it did not pass the majority of our staff did not want to have
6:42 pm
union ization everyone would like to move it longer faster. >> i'm actually curious as to how you can come up here and say the issue of working conditions is not relevant to the services that you provide to these families. >> i guess i'd argue the working conditions around expression around compensation and benefits but our managers and teamwork together to try to resolve in terms of of whether the working conditions are suitable. we've also been able to hire 20 to 25 additional new staff to be able to help support this i see them as not related. >> well i respectfully disagree i think they are linked especially given as as you noted there's so much public
6:43 pm
funding that's received so let me ask you this one of the questions that has been raised is the issue of giving the workers the ability to organize which is a basic thing that we respect do you believe in the ability of workers to organize freely. >> certainly. and some of the letters from the national labor union not with standing because we're contesting those we did allow those to go forward there was an open and free vote and our staff voted against it. >> i actually think the record sort of speaks for itself and i think it's it's it's unfortunate because i i think this is an important and needed service but i don't believe we should go down the path of creating this kind of relationship with an entity that unfortunately the people who work there have very
6:44 pm
serious concerns about the way those workers are being treated and if you treat your workers that way you can only imagine how you interact with the families that are served. >> there are a minor group of folks at edgewood feel like we haven't moved along as quickly as we'd like to and again, the majority feel the same way. and i invite you to come out and tour the facility see what we're trying to do with the limited funds that we have and what we've been able to accomplish within those constraints. >> i take you up on that offer i certainly i look forward to that. >> i just wanted to add anytime a nonprofit hires mendel son an antilabor firm at their huge costs makes me question whether the funds could be used in
6:45 pm
other ways and if you are really trying to respect the workforce through but that's right off the top of my head supervisor campos. >> if there's any relevant information you have to provide to the board i'd be interested in finding out exactly what's going on with these workers and to the extent that you are talking about compensation you know any information you have along those lines is greatly appreciated but i hope you include in that information relative how much your administrators and executives get paid so we have a full picture of what's actually happening. >> i guess for our purposes we were hoping to move on this sooner than later i guess we're pretty much at a stand still right now so can you talk to me a little bit more about the next steps we need to move forward. >> what i indicated to the
6:46 pm
director of public health is you know i know that you need to find a facility to designate i hope that you find a facility that actually you know is treating its workers well and i don't think you have that here and i'm certainly not prepared to move forward with this item and i can only speak for myself i think it would be be a mistake for us at this time. >> would this then move towards a full board vote. >> i think what comes out of committee goes to the full board do you know when the board will vote. >> my motion will be to hold this item here in committee i don't think it should come out of committee that will be my motion. >> so just so i understand i'm sorry so by not coming out of committee means it will stay here until we can either present another facility or we bring back evidence that shows that a lay your concerns.
6:47 pm
>> that's correct. >> i recommend the entire committee come to edgewood and talk to most of our staff not just a handful talk to all of our staff so you can get a good picture of what the over all sentiments and commitment is by our staff. >> i definitely will come out to see the facility and talk to the staff but i also wanted to say i appreciated the work with edgewood over the years and under standing the difference between a a 5151 and 5150 and so it will be a good experience to view the site as well. >> that's what we're post postponing at this time it's it's more suitable for children and families because right now
6:48 pm
most of them will have to go to san francisco general. >> supervisor campos is having serious concerns about the working conditions and unfair labor practice charges that will be discussed in february. thank you. . >> . >> supervisor christensen. >> if in fact there's a majority of children that have issues -- i'm very concerned about a lack of urgency in this i think we're all aware of the fact that the health industry presents challenges and providing services in a nonprofit situation is even more challenges i think our duty might be to level the concerns to those that fund this organization. if funding is an issue then finding a way to fund the organization so things are at a level we require might be more
6:49 pm
appropriate and i'd like to see some deadline or sense of urgency here and if edgewood needs to come back to us with further proof that either things aren't as bad as we think or they have mended their ways i'd like a timetable for that so these families don't continue to go to contra costa for treatment because i've seen the effects of that and it's not good for anybody. >> i guess i'm not sure how we would do that. we don't have another facility that we can designate at this time. this facility was remodeled -- it's not a 5151 designated facility but it's currently operating as a crisis stabilization unit. the way the facility is designated right now they can't accept a child on a hold
6:50 pm
those children still need to go to the emergency rooms and to psyche emergency and so i'm not sure what our next step would would be we don't have another facility that's in the pipeline to do this and i'm not quite sure what it would take to a lay the concerns of the supervisors my sense is that like you mentioned, it's incredibly hard to run a nonprofit especially in this county where the costs are so extreme that's not to say -- that your concerns -- i don't know if they are legitimate or not i'm trying to setup a facility here so i feel like we're stuck here a little bit and i'll go back speak with my supervisors i mean like i said i'm a little bit lost on the next step because we don't have another facility. >> supervisor campos might have a suggestion. >> it would be to continue this
6:51 pm
item so that we give the chair flexibility to reschedule this item as quick will he as quickly as possible i think at the end of the day the concerns that have been raised those are very serious concerns and i personally would not want a facility to welcome these children unless those concerns are actually addressed those are concerns that edgewood, it's within its power to address them and i'm ready and willing to meet at anytime so when i make the motion the motion will be to continue it to the call of chair so that the that the chair can schedule the item back if need be but i think it's within the purview and power of the edgewood to do the right thing here. >> and i'm in agreement with both of my colleagues but especially the concerns raised
6:52 pm
by supervisor campos but supervisor christensen raises the urgency and all of the other reasons why we need to move forward so i'm going to support the motion by my colleague supervisor campos but bring this back as soon as possible hopefully at the next meeting i plan to go to edgewood as well and hope that the labor conditions are something that we do our best to resolve as well so i'm going to support the motion by supervisor supervisor campos. >> will there be specific concerns outlined? i think it would be be helpful -- like poor working conditions is that not enough staff at one time it would be helpful i think if i can speak for edgewood if edgewood had specific concerns that they could address because
6:53 pm
it seems kind of general at this point. >> yeah the list of concerns were expressed by the list of folks trying to form a union and we'll certainly express those. >> i could even share with you the letter that you sent and other documents if you need them. >> so okay so we need a motion on the floor. yeah we have it opened up for public comment. now let's open it up for public comment is there anyone who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i'd like to make a motion to continue this item and i guess what i would say to the department of public health we've been very clear ever since i've been on the on the board that when an item like this comes before committee if there are concerns by workers at a facility that we're coming here and recommending to get this kind of designation, that
6:54 pm
we actually, that the department look into that before it comes to the board and actually makes this request because those are questions that we're going to raise. there are specifics that have been outlined and i'm happy to share those with you but again, you know, we understand the urgency and it is because of this urgency that i think we need to get to the bottom of these issues as quickly as possible. >> the about the period the department of public health is aware that there was a vote on the union and it did not pass and in terms of their vetting of that or knowing of that that before this was presented -- >> let me say this there are dozens and dozens of nonprofits is it struggling in in san francisco but are still able to manage to survive and do so and still treat their workers well so it's not -- it's not like
6:55 pm
you have to choose between families and workers it's a false choice. you can do both and there are many organizations that prove that every day here in san francisco. >> thank you so we have a motion on the floor to continue the item to the call of the chair. can we have a role call vote mr. evans. >> supervisor campos aye supervisor christensen aye and supervisor mar we have 3 ayes. >> i'll do my best to bring it back as as soon as i can but hopefully some progress as stated in the committee. >> please call items five and six together. >> a hearing on the status of traffic calming programs on arterial streets and the findings of the budget and legislative analysts report on speed limit reduction. >> thank you colleagues this
6:56 pm
hearing i've called this hearing on the public health safety and environmental sustainability benefits of lowering speed limits in the city of san francisco and we have a number of speakers and department reps here to report on this. this hearing is about also ultimately healthier more livable streets and communities our budget and legislative analysts report will highlight san francisco's culture of speeding in our city but also we know exactly which streets and where speeding occurs in our city with the highest incidents of accidents and injures according to our department of public health and mta and as san francisco advances towards vision zero goals to reduce traffic deaths to zero in the upcoming years
6:57 pm
we need comprehensive solutions that will significantly alter that during the that during the that dangerous driving and speeding in our city. today we'll hear from the budget and legislative analyst's office on how other cities are doing and we'll also discuss how enforcement and engineering and education interplay with speed limits to make streets safer and the status quo, according to the report from what i see from the data clearly is not working after dropping significantly in the nineties and early 2000's the rates of collisions have largely leveled off i'd frame it as they haven't decreases as we might have wanted to over the last
6:58 pm
decade. that's not what a modern san francisco or a global city like ours should be feeling like as people are on on our streets. over the past 5 years i've had really good conversations with our department of public health staff especially our director of environmental health but also other staff on a vision that looks at reducing speed limits as improving the public health and our department of public health continues along with the mta to lead on making our city safer especially with our vision zero processes but san francisco i fear is falling behind new york portland and other cities in america according to the report and in places like bristol and london and paris that are taking
6:59 pm
boulder and faster actions than we are in our city and we can really learn from these practices from other cities and apply them to our unique conditions here in san francisco i'd like to acknowledge with us today are fred ro u.s. seo and from the mta we have a director of sustainable streets mr. tom maguire from the department of transportation in new york where he worked for years improving safer streets in new york and our sustainable streets division and from the department of public health we
7:00 pm
have our co-chair of our san francisco vision zero task force and commander ann mannox working hard on the vision zero processes in our city and the audience nicole snider and tyler frisbee and many others. with that colleagues i'd like to ask if you have any opening comments supervisor christensen . >> supervisor campos. >> i just want to thank you and thank supervisor yee and kim i look forward to the presentations and suggestions and thank you to the budget analysts for their work as well. >> thank you with that i'd like to invite you to present your findings. >>


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on